Some clever stuff, indeed. That said, as I have demonstrated, it is possible for a node not to get integrated even after the almost dogmatically claimed 48 hours (which is a HUGE time on it's own, frankly). I can understand why a lot of people on slashdot have such a bad impression of Freenet: because it often *does* leave a bad impression. If, after 100 hours, it is possible one can only manage to get 4 out of 20 sites (for whatever reason, including maybe the fact it are DBR's), it is not surprising that it's deemed 'not working' by many.
If it would get integrated in a reasonable time, say 20 minutes, and DBR's would be get rid off, and all sites would pop up within one minute (which is enough latency, me thinks;-), then it would become more usable for the average joe doe. I don't think we can do that before we can analyse the problems we have (testnetwork) and before the use of 'small chunks'. But you already know my ideas about all that.
In any case, the parent poster was right in saying performance isn't very good. At least as yet. No sense in portraying it better then it currently is.
Heh... you *DO* realise you need to install the I2P application and an I2p node, running on your puter? It won't work if you just browse to it with your standard settings like to a www website .
While I think it's one of the drawbacks of Freenet, I do not think it's only an issue with Freenet, but rather the fact that any technology can be misused. Also, I'm getting a bit tired of the same 'kiddiepron' argument against it, and it portrays things in a black and white way only, which my libertarian viewpoint does not accept. The two things most quoted as being the root of evil and aparently warranting any restriction of freedom of speech is 'hatespeech' (at least in europe) and childporn.
"Children can not, by definition, consent, and thus it's rape."
Statutory rape, it is called...but one should not forget that is legalese. In my view, this is not always the case, provided 'child' can be a 16 year-old too, for instance. I take myself as an example;-). Legally, I guess one could say I was raped by an 18-year old woman when I was 16, but frankly, that's bullocks. Maybe the court would deem I couldn't consent, but hell, I did most certainly!:-) And even long before that, I had some 'nauty' play as a kid with other kids; if kids can't consent by definition, were we all raping eachother? My point is, that it is dangerous to make blanket statements like that, because it depends on the definition of 'children' and 'consent' (and thus, 'rape').
I would rather keep the definition of rape as actual rape, which happens too, and is a very sad thing indeed, but not in any way dependend on Freenet as such. There was a time, I almost stopped using Freenet, because I fell for the 'freenet promotes CP' line too, but of course, it doesn't 'promote' anything, exept uncensored speech, which can be used for good and evil, like all tools.
"Sure, but the Romans a) eventually collapsed and b) were pretty barbaric (slavery, crucifixion, etc.) by modern standards. Just because they did one thing doesn't make it acceptable, especially with a two thousand year time gap."
Every society collapses some day. The roman empire has stretched it further and longer then any modern western 'democratic' civilisation, as yet. The b part is correct, because you used 'by modern standards', which is at the same instance the weakness of judging past times. But of course, it is true that, because it happend in the past, it does not mean it's a good thing per sé.
"You are wrong on this. It is not necessary to actually make the object to get it patented. I am 100% certain of this."
Well, clearly not any longer, since patents on software and business-methods are possible (at least in the usa). But seen the case of Ford, at one time, wisdom reigned enough to forbid those silly patents. And I'm quite certain of that, because, apart from Ford, I remember another issue with geostationary satelites, first conceived off by Arthur C. Clarke, and he couldn't get a patent because he couldn't actually put a satelite up there to show his concept worked.
"Two identical computers running two different programs are different machines."
No, the instructions differ and thus the patterns are different, but the machines are the same. We simply disagree on the term 'machines', I guess - and I think many people, for that matter. Which, on itself, should make it clear that software and pure physical objects DO differ to some extend, or there wouldn't be all that controverse around it.
"So we come back to the reasons for my original post.
1)Patents make more sense than copyright for protecting software since computers running software are more like machines than books."
As I said, a 'computer running software' can be deemed patentable, as long as the computer running it is or contains novel components, etc. The problem with your definition can be demonstrated as follows: coders can, albeit mostly only simple progs, 'run' code in their head. Take the hypothetical situation where a certain code gets patented, which says any number multiplied by zero is zero (and that there wasn't prior art;-). A coder runs that in his head, and comes to the same outcome as a computer. Did he break the patent, thus? Wasn't he allowed to run it in his mind? What would the difference be between running it in a biological computer, and a mechanical one? If the program itself is deemed patetable when 'run', then logic would dictate that in both cases, it could be forbidden to run. thus, the coder would be infringing upon the patent as well. In effect, you would forbid or patent thought itself. This is the ultimate outcome, when you argue that patterns and instructions can be patented: if you run that program in your own mind, you would be breaking it too. So, while I can see why you could argue that there is no difference, at the same token, then, running it with our old, slow biological computers should be forbidden too.
Thus, in answer: Only if a)one is of the opinion that software is more of a machine then a book. (which I do not agree with) and b)if patents do more good then bad (which are the goals of patents), compared to copyright.
"2) The general opinion here seems to be that software patents are bad, so I'd like to know why people think that. Specifically, what do people think is different about software technology from all the other areas of technology covered by patents."
First of all, as I have said before, patents in general could be deemed bad in most cases. I refer you to my post I made to Halo1, but which contained a considerable part directed at you too.
So, it's not 'why are patents deemed good, exept for softwarepatents'? It's more that it can be deemed bad in most instances, but it becomes more obviously so in the case of softwarepatents. Why? Well, a poster in this thread made a link to a vid of R.Stallman, who explained it more eloquently. The main reason was the incremental nature of software, which is much bigger then with physical objects, in comparison. Also, softwarepatents do not have the inertia that regular patents have; look at europe, for instance, where it is (still) not allowed.
So, what you are asking is something akin to 'what is the difference between one bad thing, and all those other bad things?' Well, apart from the level of severity: nothing, perhaps. But let me refrase the question, and ask you : 'why should another bad thing be allowed?'
"And here we get to the crux. Why do you and others here think this, when it does not seem to be true for all other industries and technologies? "
Maybe it *is* true for other fields too; but fact is, due to the vast incremental nature of software (much greater then when making a physical object) and the fact it deals with mental processes, it is much more apparent that it is bad. And due to the controversial nature of patenting software (as opposed to the 'used-to-it-inertia' of normal patents) there has been a lot of research lately, about the subject - which indeed indicates it is a bad thing.
So, it's not that all other patents are good, it's that it's more obvious that softwarepatents are bad.
I'm not agreeing that he is troll per sé. Granted, at first I thought so too, but usually trolls don't do that much effort to give understandable responses. It is difficult to see the difference between someone having an oposite view, and believing it and strongly advocating it, and trolling. Being called a troll myself occasionally, I think I have some rights to claim this.:-)
As for slashsoup:
"Society has concluded that the net effect of patents on technology is positive, not just less negative. Why is it that you think the net effect on software is negative? "
Actually, no. Society has not concluded this at all. Governments of the 18th and 19th century thought that it would have a positive effect, and in some fields where the incremental nature is less (such as farmaceuticals) this might be true. It's worth noting, however, that australia in the 80ies examined the influence of patents, and found that, overall, patents did *not* do what they were supposed to do. They recommended abolishing it, but ofcourse, foreign pressure and worldwide inertia because of the common use of patents excluded that.
So, it's not because it's "so good" that it should and is being kept alive; in many fields it would stimulate progress much more if patents weren't there. In the field of software, however, it becomes more obvious (due to the incremental nature of softwarepatents) how outright negative this is. Also, more and more studies about this topic have been done, and almost all (at least the non-corporate sponsored ones) have shown that softwarepatents do more harm then good.
Now, you can lament and say 'then all patents in all fields should be abolished', and maybe many should, indeed, at least those where the benefits do not outweigh the advantages. But the fact is, we do not, as yet, have the same inertia that already is established for patents in other fields, at least in europe. And it seems to me, it's illogical to expect europe to create a bad patentlaw, because others have allowed bad patentlaws.
I'm all for a grand, scientific and independend research into the advantages and disadvantages of softwarepatents (and maybe other fields as well), and if they reach their stated claims/goals...and then base the decision solely on this. But ofcourse, in reality you have politics, money and lobbying, so..fat chance that happening. Thus, we are left with the strong indications that independend research thusfar *has* shown us, and logical reasoning to consider what is best for europe, as a whole (which means in an economical sense; for SME's, because more then 80% of the workforce in Europe is concentrated in those, and not big foreign softwarecompanies).
So you see, though you might feel you have an inate right on a softwarepatent, that is really not the issue. It's what is best for society, and best for europe. In both instances, research and logic dictates it's a *NO* for softwarepatents.
"I agree, but I can build a hardware version of a computer running software that is entirely hardware with only hardware parts (firmware or hard-coded ones/zeros) instead of the software. You're pointing to a difference that has no substance."
I disagree. It's just the part of the physical object that makes the difference. Otherwise, if you would be consistent in giving the mere fact of creating a pattern to be patentable, then you should be able to patent everything. Just reading a book creates optical input that is translated into electrical signals which create patterns in different area's of the brain. If patterns are patentable, then brainprocesses themselves are patentable, and, ultimately, thoughtprocesses are patentable. The brain, after all, is nothing more then a biological computer, albeit a very complex one.
"However, I can write a patent and get rights in the same invention described in the book."
No, you can not, unless you make the actual object. The first case that showed this was by Ford, when he countered a patent that was given on cars by someone who made a complete car on paper. But he didn't actually made a car, and Ford pointed out that this couldn't be. The courts/patentoffice agreed.
"Let me ask the same question - Do you really think that a computer running software is somehow not "real?" That I can't build an only hardware version?"
Mental processes are real in the sense of constructs, but they do not constitute physical objects. This was (and should have remained) out of the scope of patents, thus.
"Software is simply a set of instructions that controls how the computer operates. A computer operating according to those instructions is as real as an apple sorter and as much of a machine as an apple sorter."
It's not about being 'real' it's about being physical. But of course a computer running software is a machine, and no one is saying that isn't patentable. When the EU-parliament admented the proposol, they said as much: that (when novel, non-obvious, etc.) machines, also when running software, could be patented. But NOT merely on the basis of the software. It's the machine itself that should be novel (etc.) thus, regardless of the software, though not excluding it.
All our discussion on this thread really does not go to the bottom of things, however. As others have pointed out, you do not have a natural 'right' on a patent. A patent is a monopoly for a certain time, granted by the state. Monopolies are never a good thing, and the only reason why it is allowed in this case, is with the idea that it stimulates research and further innovation. With software-patents it becomes increasingly obvious (quite some research on this has been done, lately) that it does not serve this purpose at all, on the contrary. Thus, it logically follows there is no reason to create or give softwarepatents, and in fact, for the stated goal of stimulating progress in the field, they should be outright forbidden.
since you seem a logical person, I'm sure you also can see the logic in this reasoning, whether you personally feel entitled to a softwarepatent or not.
"That's a machine and should be patentable if it's something that is new and meets patent standards."
No, the computer is the machine, and the software is the instruction that the machine follows, as the poster said.
Is it that difficult to see? You seem to be of the opinion books (and the content therein) can't be patented, right? Now, imagine computers get smart enough to understand normal written words...then suddenly, ordinary text could be patented too?
Software is *not* a machine, it does *not* produce electrical charges: the electrical charges are provided by the powersupply of the computer. The only thing it does, is instructing these charges how to behave. Since instructions are mental processes and not physical objects, it falls outside the scope of patents.
"The decisiosn was made long ago that the rewards for issuing patents are greater than the downside risks."
The decision was also made long ago that it was for physical objects, not ideas or concepts or algorithms... nor software, originally (even in the USA). If that was an argument, software should not have made patentable in the usa.
Also, as Halo1 already indicated, the rewards in cases of softwarepatents do not outweigh the downside risk, which means another argument bites the dust.
"Why give up a system that has worked and driven technology for the betterment of all?"
Because that system was conceived for physical objects, not programs.
Besides, we're not 'giving up' a system, we just want to see it used the way it was intended.
Well, other posters have explained it already, but it could also be summarised by what you yourself say:
"In case my point was not clear, a computer program, to my technical mind, is more like a machine than a book."
A computer program, to my logical mind, is a book, not a machine.
Therefor, all your arguments, which are based on your premise, have little validity in my eyes. You could say the same, ofcourse, which is why, ultimately, it comes down to who has the most power to uphold ones' view...currently, in europe, we're doing not too bad to give some struggle, and, who knows, maybe we'll win.
When that happens, all your questions will indeed be answered with 'no', because we start with another premise then you.
How would a comparison between what we had and what we have now, be meaningless, if it's exactly that which we want to compare? If that reasoning would be hold up consistently, then any historical analysis and comparison with modern techniques or products is meaningless.
Furthermore, the premise that because something is gone, it becomes meaningless is rather strange, and potentially dangerous.
"Didn't this take the same type of mental effort that it took to design the apple sorter?"
No.
"Aren't I entitled to the same type of protection?"
No.
"Doesn't it make sense to use patent protection designed for protectiong useful things and not copyright designed for protecting expression of ideas, but not the idea itself?"
"If so, European developers may not be off the hook. Sure European companies won't be able to create software patents - but that wouldn't stop Microsoft or other U.S. companies from enforcing their patents."
It's just the oposite. EU companies can still create softwarepatents abroad, but it forbids softwarepatents in the EU, even when USA companies would try to enforce it.
It comes down to: we can get patents there, but they can't get it here. All other objections to SWP aside, this alone should make it clear the EU has an economical benefit for not allowing softwarepatents.
I'ts all very insteresting to read about this, but I'm wondering... seems creating P2P is very simple, yet why takes it so long for people to take up the chalenge of making a 'small social network' P2P-system?
Wasn't it on this veryè same slashdot, that not too long ago an article was mentioned about a site who was willing to pay a considerable amount of money to any coder willing to work on a OSS P2P system annex IM which was meant to be used in a small network of friends, and thus, below the radar of RIAA and co.
I gather the author in question isn't very interested in money, at least compared to 'status among peers' (something that seems to be typical of good coders working on OSS projects, like Linus). But I can't imagine that NO coder (at least the last time I checked) has taken that offer up for 1000 bucks, while this one makes a simple P2P prog in a matter of days, just to prove a point, or even just for the fun of it.
I'm not sure how it was called again, but some probably will remember and maybe post a link to it...now, the only thing to find are skala-type dudes - and getting a nice bonus on top. Volunteers?
We all heard the reasoning for abolishing space-exploration (particulary human-based) before, and I think the major flaw in all these 'arguments' why we shouldn't go into space is that they always set economic factors as a premise.
But, although economic viability is important to create a mass-usuage of space(travel), I fail to see why it should be the only possible motive to start exploring space. It's a pretty narrowminded, materialistic and typical capitalistic view on things. It's the same view that makes progress on medication for very rare diseases, or for diseases that are prevalent in continents that are poor, so slow: corporations can't see how they are ever going to get profit out of it, so they all turn their backs on it.
If ppl (including states) are only going to do something when they are sure of an immediate profitable return, the world has become a sad place. (And we should leave it the sooner;-)
Arguments based on such a viewpoint fail to recognise other incentives apart from economical ones.
The reason why we shouldn't (only) rely on robots? You can explore, but you can not colonise with robots. The will to explore is deeply entrenched in the human race, but with a reason: it has survival advantages.
A species that doesn't colonise new territory and adapt, will perish. I think it's paramount that humans always keep their adventurage spirit and keep exploring and expanding, because the moment we will go "ah, let's sit back in our sofa's and let our robots/droids do it", we're basically finished, even when not being aware of it at that moment.
"There is no such thing as international law when there is no way to enforce it."
That is clearly not true. You have laws, which are not enforced; the legal system in most western countries are rifed with it. You have laws that were enforced, but not any longer. And you have laws, which are basically uninforcable. You even have laws that that are made by agreement, not be force.;-)
Even the US itself accepts the notion of international law, only they have the tendency to acknowledge it when it suits them, and disregard it when it doesn't. That doesn't mean that international law doesn't exist, it just means the US (and other countries that do the same) is hypocrite and arrogant.
I concur. Though I have personal opinions that may not like some aspects of the gay scene (as portrayed by the parades and the lot), and I have my reservations on a lot of things, there is a difference between my personal (dis)likings, and what is actually right based on logic and a measure of being able to view the point from the perspective of others.
It are those two aspects that many Xians, and active religious people in general, fail at, IMHO. They can't seem to make the difference between personal feelings (which, in this case, they try to justify with quotes from the bible or other religious dogma's), and a rationale based on common (non religious) principles.
They call it 'moral relevationism' and refute it, but the truth is, morality and ethical questions ARE relative. Without that part of the philosophy of Kant (or similar concepts) and the use of logic, you can't really determine anything that would constitute something 'better', morality wise, then anything else - it would just depend on subjective opinion (and often to hypocrisy).
Yet, I've imagined an absolute libertarian concept, something in the lines of 'the state of the free will', and I must confess I have trouble actually making it coherent, even only pondering it hypothetically. For instance, in principle, you could say anyone is free to do anything he likes, even in public places, as long as he doesn't infringe on the freedoms of others. Yet, I could imagine that I won't feel all to happy, say, waiting on a bus, and next to me is a guy, nude, who's jerking off, for instance. I mean, on itself, I would have to conclude he doesn't restrict my freedom, and he doesn't force me to do it too, nor forbids it to me, so basically...well, it follows the points I made.
Yet, much as I'm a libertarian, I would not want to live in a society where people next to you are jerking off when you're waiting for the bus. Maybe that's a shortcomming in tolerance of my part, due to my upbringing or sort, I dunno. But it seems to me that very few people would accept everything anyone does (as long as - and even if - it doesn't restrict their personal freedoms), as long as they are openly confronted with it.
So, you might have a point that total libertarianism is a private matter, and when it's a public matter, there should be some minimal rules.
However, a marriage is, to some extent, also a public matter. In fact, legally, it has to be proclaimed publicly (at least in my country), so there is a possible contradiction in this.
On the other hand, there is also the possibility of comparing things, and in that way, many problems can be solved by pointing to the hypocrisy or inconsistencies; if, for instance, heterosexual marriage is accepted, even in public, then why not gay marriages? After all, if you allow it for one, but not for the other, based on their sexual preferences, then you are basically discriminating.
Ah, isn't philosophy wonderful - or at least entertaining?:-)
"Now, if something is so revolting that the mere sight of it causes most people disgust, then it should be illegal in public places -- like this."
Ever heard of international law? In the UN, it is no secret that it was an illegal war; Kofi Anan himself has said as much. It's not a problem of identifying it by the UN, it's a problem of getting accountability, as I said.
It's one thing to point to the problem, it's another one to be able do do something about it (as you yourself indicated).
I think you pointed out the problem: there is no legislative, nor military or police-force on earth that could make the USA accountable. Which they know all to well, and therefor they act as the classical bully who knows no1 can touch him.
Maybe we should look for a stronger UN, where the veto-right is inhibited or at least severely restricted, and countries, even big ones, are held accountable for their actions.
Clinton pulled out because the US wanted to experiment on fusion in a whole other are, namely firing lasers at tritium-pellets.
If you read the articles liked to the main page, you can clearly see that after 3 years the USA came back around the table, but oposed France as an area where Iter could be build, because of France's oposition to the war.
Which is really silly and childish. The USA should grow up and respect the wishes of other countries not to support an illegal war, and not try to link an international scientific endeavour with their foreign politics and their scewed worldview that the US should rule everything, blessed as it is by God Himself.
Slashdot Mirror
Some clever stuff, indeed. That said, as I have demonstrated, it is possible for a node not to get integrated even after the almost dogmatically claimed 48 hours (which is a HUGE time on it's own, frankly). I can understand why a lot of people on slashdot have such a bad impression of Freenet: because it often *does* leave a bad impression. If, after 100 hours, it is possible one can only manage to get 4 out of 20 sites (for whatever reason, including maybe the fact it are DBR's), it is not surprising that it's deemed 'not working' by many.
;-), then it would become more usable for the average joe doe. I don't think we can do that before we can analyse the problems we have (testnetwork) and before the use of 'small chunks'. But you already know my ideas about all that.
If it would get integrated in a reasonable time, say 20 minutes, and DBR's would be get rid off, and all sites would pop up within one minute (which is enough latency, me thinks
In any case, the parent poster was right in saying performance isn't very good. At least as yet. No sense in portraying it better then it currently is.
"Why this hasn't been on slashdot is beyond me."
Probably because they explicitly asked *NOT* to put it on slashdot, which you probably knew, my dear anonymous coward!
Heh... you *DO* realise you need to install the I2P application and an I2p node, running on your puter? It won't work if you just browse to it with your standard settings like to a www website .
While I think it's one of the drawbacks of Freenet, I do not think it's only an issue with Freenet, but rather the fact that any technology can be misused. Also, I'm getting a bit tired of the same 'kiddiepron' argument against it, and it portrays things in a black and white way only, which my libertarian viewpoint does not accept. The two things most quoted as being the root of evil and aparently warranting any restriction of freedom of speech is 'hatespeech' (at least in europe) and childporn.
;-). Legally, I guess one could say I was raped by an 18-year old woman when I was 16, but frankly, that's bullocks. Maybe the court would deem I couldn't consent, but hell, I did most certainly! :-) And even long before that, I had some 'nauty' play as a kid with other kids; if kids can't consent by definition, were we all raping eachother? My point is, that it is dangerous to make blanket statements like that, because it depends on the definition of 'children' and 'consent' (and thus, 'rape').
"Children can not, by definition, consent, and thus it's rape."
Statutory rape, it is called...but one should not forget that is legalese. In my view, this is not always the case, provided 'child' can be a 16 year-old too, for instance. I take myself as an example
I would rather keep the definition of rape as actual rape, which happens too, and is a very sad thing indeed, but not in any way dependend on Freenet as such. There was a time, I almost stopped using Freenet, because I fell for the 'freenet promotes CP' line too, but of course, it doesn't 'promote' anything, exept uncensored speech, which can be used for good and evil, like all tools.
"Sure, but the Romans a) eventually collapsed and b) were pretty barbaric (slavery, crucifixion, etc.) by modern standards. Just because they did one thing doesn't make it acceptable, especially with a two thousand year time gap."
Every society collapses some day. The roman empire has stretched it further and longer then any modern western 'democratic' civilisation, as yet. The b part is correct, because you used 'by modern standards', which is at the same instance the weakness of judging past times. But of course, it is true that, because it happend in the past, it does not mean it's a good thing per sé.
"You are wrong on this. It is not necessary to actually make the object to get it patented. I am 100% certain of this."
;-). A coder runs that in his head, and comes to the same outcome as a computer. Did he break the patent, thus? Wasn't he allowed to run it in his mind? What would the difference be between running it in a biological computer, and a mechanical one? If the program itself is deemed patetable when 'run', then logic would dictate that in both cases, it could be forbidden to run. thus, the coder would be infringing upon the patent as well. In effect, you would forbid or patent thought itself. This is the ultimate outcome, when you argue that patterns and instructions can be patented: if you run that program in your own mind, you would be breaking it too. So, while I can see why you could argue that there is no difference, at the same token, then, running it with our old, slow biological computers should be forbidden too.
Well, clearly not any longer, since patents on software and business-methods are possible (at least in the usa). But seen the case of Ford, at one time, wisdom reigned enough to forbid those silly patents. And I'm quite certain of that, because, apart from Ford, I remember another issue with geostationary satelites, first conceived off by Arthur C. Clarke, and he couldn't get a patent because he couldn't actually put a satelite up there to show his concept worked.
"Two identical computers running two different programs are different machines."
No, the instructions differ and thus the patterns are different, but the machines are the same. We simply disagree on the term 'machines', I guess - and I think many people, for that matter. Which, on itself, should make it clear that software and pure physical objects DO differ to some extend, or there wouldn't be all that controverse around it.
"So we come back to the reasons for my original post.
1)Patents make more sense than copyright for protecting software since computers running software are more like machines than books."
As I said, a 'computer running software' can be deemed patentable, as long as the computer running it is or contains novel components, etc. The problem with your definition can be demonstrated as follows: coders can, albeit mostly only simple progs, 'run' code in their head. Take the hypothetical situation where a certain code gets patented, which says any number multiplied by zero is zero (and that there wasn't prior art
Thus, in answer: Only if a)one is of the opinion that software is more of a machine then a book. (which I do not agree with) and b)if patents do more good then bad (which are the goals of patents), compared to copyright.
"2) The general opinion here seems to be that software patents are bad, so I'd like to know why people think that. Specifically, what do people think is different about software technology from all the other areas of technology covered by patents."
First of all, as I have said before, patents in general could be deemed bad in most cases. I refer you to my post I made to Halo1, but which contained a considerable part directed at you too.
So, it's not 'why are patents deemed good, exept for softwarepatents'? It's more that it can be deemed bad in most instances, but it becomes more obviously so in the case of softwarepatents. Why? Well, a poster in this thread made a link to a vid of R.Stallman, who explained it more eloquently. The main reason was the incremental nature of software, which is much bigger then with physical objects, in comparison. Also, softwarepatents do not have the inertia that regular patents have; look at europe, for instance, where it is (still) not allowed.
So, what you are asking is something akin to 'what is the difference between one bad thing, and all those other bad things?' Well, apart from the level of severity: nothing, perhaps. But let me refrase the question, and ask you : 'why should another bad thing be allowed?'
"I am personally aghast at the p
Can you please use spaces between paragraphs? This was virtually unreadable. Thanks.
"And here we get to the crux. Why do you and others here think this, when it does not seem to be true for all other industries and technologies? "
Maybe it *is* true for other fields too; but fact is, due to the vast incremental nature of software (much greater then when making a physical object) and the fact it deals with mental processes, it is much more apparent that it is bad. And due to the controversial nature of patenting software (as opposed to the 'used-to-it-inertia' of normal patents) there has been a lot of research lately, about the subject - which indeed indicates it is a bad thing.
So, it's not that all other patents are good, it's that it's more obvious that softwarepatents are bad.
I'm not agreeing that he is troll per sé. Granted, at first I thought so too, but usually trolls don't do that much effort to give understandable responses. It is difficult to see the difference between someone having an oposite view, and believing it and strongly advocating it, and trolling. Being called a troll myself occasionally, I think I have some rights to claim this. :-)
As for slashsoup:
"Society has concluded that the net effect of patents on technology is positive, not just less negative. Why is it that you think the net effect on software is negative? "
Actually, no. Society has not concluded this at all. Governments of the 18th and 19th century thought that it would have a positive effect, and in some fields where the incremental nature is less (such as farmaceuticals) this might be true. It's worth noting, however, that australia in the 80ies examined the influence of patents, and found that, overall, patents did *not* do what they were supposed to do. They recommended abolishing it, but ofcourse, foreign pressure and worldwide inertia because of the common use of patents excluded that.
So, it's not because it's "so good" that it should and is being kept alive; in many fields it would stimulate progress much more if patents weren't there. In the field of software, however, it becomes more obvious (due to the incremental nature of softwarepatents) how outright negative this is. Also, more and more studies about this topic have been done, and almost all (at least the non-corporate sponsored ones) have shown that softwarepatents do more harm then good.
Now, you can lament and say 'then all patents in all fields should be abolished', and maybe many should, indeed, at least those where the benefits do not outweigh the advantages. But the fact is, we do not, as yet, have the same inertia that already is established for patents in other fields, at least in europe. And it seems to me, it's illogical to expect europe to create a bad patentlaw, because others have allowed bad patentlaws.
I'm all for a grand, scientific and independend research into the advantages and disadvantages of softwarepatents (and maybe other fields as well), and if they reach their stated claims/goals...and then base the decision solely on this. But ofcourse, in reality you have politics, money and lobbying, so..fat chance that happening. Thus, we are left with the strong indications that independend research thusfar *has* shown us, and logical reasoning to consider what is best for europe, as a whole (which means in an economical sense; for SME's, because more then 80% of the workforce in Europe is concentrated in those, and not big foreign softwarecompanies).
So you see, though you might feel you have an inate right on a softwarepatent, that is really not the issue. It's what is best for society, and best for europe. In both instances, research and logic dictates it's a *NO* for softwarepatents.
"I agree, but I can build a hardware version of a computer running software that is entirely hardware with only hardware parts (firmware or hard-coded ones/zeros) instead of the software. You're pointing to a difference that has no substance."
I disagree. It's just the part of the physical object that makes the difference. Otherwise, if you would be consistent in giving the mere fact of creating a pattern to be patentable, then you should be able to patent everything. Just reading a book creates optical input that is translated into electrical signals which create patterns in different area's of the brain. If patterns are patentable, then brainprocesses themselves are patentable, and, ultimately, thoughtprocesses are patentable. The brain, after all, is nothing more then a biological computer, albeit a very complex one.
"However, I can write a patent and get rights in the same invention described in the book."
No, you can not, unless you make the actual object. The first case that showed this was by Ford, when he countered a patent that was given on cars by someone who made a complete car on paper. But he didn't actually made a car, and Ford pointed out that this couldn't be. The courts/patentoffice agreed.
"Let me ask the same question - Do you really think that a computer running software is somehow not "real?" That I can't build an only hardware version?"
Mental processes are real in the sense of constructs, but they do not constitute physical objects. This was (and should have remained) out of the scope of patents, thus.
"Software is simply a set of instructions that controls how the computer operates. A computer operating according to those instructions is as real as an apple sorter and as much of a machine as an apple sorter."
It's not about being 'real' it's about being physical. But of course a computer running software is a machine, and no one is saying that isn't patentable. When the EU-parliament admented the proposol, they said as much: that (when novel, non-obvious, etc.) machines, also when running software, could be patented. But NOT merely on the basis of the software. It's the machine itself that should be novel (etc.) thus, regardless of the software, though not excluding it.
All our discussion on this thread really does not go to the bottom of things, however. As others have pointed out, you do not have a natural 'right' on a patent. A patent is a monopoly for a certain time, granted by the state. Monopolies are never a good thing, and the only reason why it is allowed in this case, is with the idea that it stimulates research and further innovation. With software-patents it becomes increasingly obvious (quite some research on this has been done, lately) that it does not serve this purpose at all, on the contrary. Thus, it logically follows there is no reason to create or give softwarepatents, and in fact, for the stated goal of stimulating progress in the field, they should be outright forbidden.
since you seem a logical person, I'm sure you also can see the logic in this reasoning, whether you personally feel entitled to a softwarepatent or not.
"That's a machine and should be patentable if it's something that is new and meets patent standards."
No, the computer is the machine, and the software is the instruction that the machine follows, as the poster said.
Is it that difficult to see? You seem to be of the opinion books (and the content therein) can't be patented, right? Now, imagine computers get smart enough to understand normal written words...then suddenly, ordinary text could be patented too?
Software is *not* a machine, it does *not* produce electrical charges: the electrical charges are provided by the powersupply of the computer. The only thing it does, is instructing these charges how to behave. Since instructions are mental processes and not physical objects, it falls outside the scope of patents.
"The decisiosn was made long ago that the rewards for issuing patents are greater than the downside risks."
The decision was also made long ago that it was for physical objects, not ideas or concepts or algorithms... nor software, originally (even in the USA). If that was an argument, software should not have made patentable in the usa.
Also, as Halo1 already indicated, the rewards in cases of softwarepatents do not outweigh the downside risk, which means another argument bites the dust.
"Why give up a system that has worked and driven technology for the betterment of all?"
Because that system was conceived for physical objects, not programs.
Besides, we're not 'giving up' a system, we just want to see it used the way it was intended.
Well, other posters have explained it already, but it could also be summarised by what you yourself say:
"In case my point was not clear, a computer program, to my technical mind, is more like a machine than a book."
A computer program, to my logical mind, is a book, not a machine.
Therefor, all your arguments, which are based on your premise, have little validity in my eyes. You could say the same, ofcourse, which is why, ultimately, it comes down to who has the most power to uphold ones' view...currently, in europe, we're doing not too bad to give some struggle, and, who knows, maybe we'll win.
When that happens, all your questions will indeed be answered with 'no', because we start with another premise then you.
How would a comparison between what we had and what we have now, be meaningless, if it's exactly that which we want to compare? If that reasoning would be hold up consistently, then any historical analysis and comparison with modern techniques or products is meaningless.
Furthermore, the premise that because something is gone, it becomes meaningless is rather strange, and potentially dangerous.
"Didn't this take the same type of mental effort that it took to design the apple sorter?"
No.
"Aren't I entitled to the same type of protection?"
No.
"Doesn't it make sense to use patent protection designed for protectiong useful things and not copyright designed for protecting expression of ideas, but not the idea itself?"
No.
"If so, European developers may not be off the hook. Sure European companies won't be able to create software patents - but that wouldn't stop Microsoft or other U.S. companies from enforcing their patents."
It's just the oposite. EU companies can still create softwarepatents abroad, but it forbids softwarepatents in the EU, even when USA companies would try to enforce it.
It comes down to: we can get patents there, but they can't get it here. All other objections to SWP aside, this alone should make it clear the EU has an economical benefit for not allowing softwarepatents.
I'ts all very insteresting to read about this, but I'm wondering... seems creating P2P is very simple, yet why takes it so long for people to take up the chalenge of making a 'small social network' P2P-system?
Wasn't it on this veryè same slashdot, that not too long ago an article was mentioned about a site who was willing to pay a considerable amount of money to any coder willing to work on a OSS P2P system annex IM which was meant to be used in a small network of friends, and thus, below the radar of RIAA and co.
I gather the author in question isn't very interested in money, at least compared to 'status among peers' (something that seems to be typical of good coders working on OSS projects, like Linus). But I can't imagine that NO coder (at least the last time I checked) has taken that offer up for 1000 bucks, while this one makes a simple P2P prog in a matter of days, just to prove a point, or even just for the fun of it.
I'm not sure how it was called again, but some probably will remember and maybe post a link to it...now, the only thing to find are skala-type dudes - and getting a nice bonus on top. Volunteers?
We all heard the reasoning for abolishing space-exploration (particulary human-based) before, and I think the major flaw in all these 'arguments' why we shouldn't go into space is that they always set economic factors as a premise.
;-)
But, although economic viability is important to create a mass-usuage of space(travel), I fail to see why it should be the only possible motive to start exploring space. It's a pretty narrowminded, materialistic and typical capitalistic view on things. It's the same view that makes progress on medication for very rare diseases, or for diseases that are prevalent in continents that are poor, so slow: corporations can't see how they are ever going to get profit out of it, so they all turn their backs on it.
If ppl (including states) are only going to do something when they are sure of an immediate profitable return, the world has become a sad place. (And we should leave it the sooner
Arguments based on such a viewpoint fail to recognise other incentives apart from economical ones.
The reason why we shouldn't (only) rely on robots? You can explore, but you can not colonise with robots. The will to explore is deeply entrenched in the human race, but with a reason: it has survival advantages.
A species that doesn't colonise new territory and adapt, will perish. I think it's paramount that humans always keep their adventurage spirit and keep exploring and expanding, because the moment we will go "ah, let's sit back in our sofa's and let our robots/droids do it", we're basically finished, even when not being aware of it at that moment.
"There is no such thing as international law when there is no way to enforce it."
;-)
That is clearly not true. You have laws, which are not enforced; the legal system in most western countries are rifed with it. You have laws that were enforced, but not any longer. And you have laws, which are basically uninforcable. You even have laws that that are made by agreement, not be force.
Even the US itself accepts the notion of international law, only they have the tendency to acknowledge it when it suits them, and disregard it when it doesn't. That doesn't mean that international law doesn't exist, it just means the US (and other countries that do the same) is hypocrite and arrogant.
I concur. Though I have personal opinions that may not like some aspects of the gay scene (as portrayed by the parades and the lot), and I have my reservations on a lot of things, there is a difference between my personal (dis)likings, and what is actually right based on logic and a measure of being able to view the point from the perspective of others.
:-)
;-)
It are those two aspects that many Xians, and active religious people in general, fail at, IMHO. They can't seem to make the difference between personal feelings (which, in this case, they try to justify with quotes from the bible or other religious dogma's), and a rationale based on common (non religious) principles.
They call it 'moral relevationism' and refute it, but the truth is, morality and ethical questions ARE relative. Without that part of the philosophy of Kant (or similar concepts) and the use of logic, you can't really determine anything that would constitute something 'better', morality wise, then anything else - it would just depend on subjective opinion (and often to hypocrisy).
Yet, I've imagined an absolute libertarian concept, something in the lines of 'the state of the free will', and I must confess I have trouble actually making it coherent, even only pondering it hypothetically. For instance, in principle, you could say anyone is free to do anything he likes, even in public places, as long as he doesn't infringe on the freedoms of others. Yet, I could imagine that I won't feel all to happy, say, waiting on a bus, and next to me is a guy, nude, who's jerking off, for instance. I mean, on itself, I would have to conclude he doesn't restrict my freedom, and he doesn't force me to do it too, nor forbids it to me, so basically...well, it follows the points I made.
Yet, much as I'm a libertarian, I would not want to live in a society where people next to you are jerking off when you're waiting for the bus. Maybe that's a shortcomming in tolerance of my part, due to my upbringing or sort, I dunno. But it seems to me that very few people would accept everything anyone does (as long as - and even if - it doesn't restrict their personal freedoms), as long as they are openly confronted with it.
So, you might have a point that total libertarianism is a private matter, and when it's a public matter, there should be some minimal rules.
However, a marriage is, to some extent, also a public matter. In fact, legally, it has to be proclaimed publicly (at least in my country), so there is a possible contradiction in this.
On the other hand, there is also the possibility of comparing things, and in that way, many problems can be solved by pointing to the hypocrisy or inconsistencies; if, for instance, heterosexual marriage is accepted, even in public, then why not gay marriages? After all, if you allow it for one, but not for the other, based on their sexual preferences, then you are basically discriminating.
Ah, isn't philosophy wonderful - or at least entertaining?
"Now, if something is so revolting that the mere sight of it causes most people disgust, then it should be illegal in public places -- like this."
LOL
You make a strong case!
Ever heard of international law? In the UN, it is no secret that it was an illegal war; Kofi Anan himself has said as much. It's not a problem of identifying it by the UN, it's a problem of getting accountability, as I said.
It's one thing to point to the problem, it's another one to be able do do something about it (as you yourself indicated).
I think you pointed out the problem: there is no legislative, nor military or police-force on earth that could make the USA accountable. Which they know all to well, and therefor they act as the classical bully who knows no1 can touch him.
Maybe we should look for a stronger UN, where the veto-right is inhibited or at least severely restricted, and countries, even big ones, are held accountable for their actions.
"But the demands that the EU are making aren't????"
No.
they prefer invasion and occupation to get the energy-resources they want
Clinton pulled out because the US wanted to experiment on fusion in a whole other are, namely firing lasers at tritium-pellets.
If you read the articles liked to the main page, you can clearly see that after 3 years the USA came back around the table, but oposed France as an area where Iter could be build, because of France's oposition to the war.
Which is really silly and childish. The USA should grow up and respect the wishes of other countries not to support an illegal war, and not try to link an international scientific endeavour with their foreign politics and their scewed worldview that the US should rule everything, blessed as it is by God Himself.
"I'll take your word for it. I never turned one over. ;-)"
;-)
:-)
Well, I would refer you to the wikipedia, but I recently made a post pointing out that the wikipedia is diverging towards mediocrity.
"They also may play a part in regulating the temperature of the hive."
No, that are worker bees too. As far as I can remember, drones only pop up when a new queen has to be inseminated; afterwards they die.
(Always happy to spread knowledge about birds and bees